A hypocritical frenzy over the Camilla 'attack'

• • 
    Laurie Penny - A hypocritical frenzy over the Camilla 'attack'
  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 January 2011 12.00 GMT
  • CLICK HERE TO READ.

Rest In Peace Prince Alireza Pahlavi

Prince Alireza Pahlavi

April 28 1966 - January 4 2010

I would just like to pay my respects to Prince Alireza Pahlavi who passed away late last night.  Alireza, the youngest son of the former Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, had battled with depression throughout his life and eventually ended his own life.  I can only imagine how hard it must have been for the young prince, who went into exile at age thirteen in 1979, to have lived a life in which he had lost everything including his own sense of identity.  This is the second such tragedy faced by the Pahlavi family, following the suicide of Leila Pahlavi (daughter of the former shah) back in 2001.  My thoughts are with the surviving members of the Pahlavi family.

St Moritz holiday ... the royal family in 1969, from left, Crown Prince Reza, Prince Alireza, the empress Farah, Princess Farahnaz and the shah

Julian Assange Exclusive Interview with MSNBC

Julian Assange, founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, was interviewed on the 21st December 2010 by Cenk Uyger of MSNBC.  Having watched this interview I found myself captivated by what Assange had to say and how he defended both himself and the Wikileaks organisation.  There are two major points from the interview that I would like to discuss further, but firstly I encourage you to watch the interview for yourselves:

Interesting?

Ok, so here I go.  The first part of the interview that I wish to comment on was the part when Assange discussed some of the comments made by some major political figures/analysts.  I agree completely with what Assange says on the matter and as a result I don't believe I can say anything that he hasn't already said himself.  I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that the United States, the 'land of the free' where free speech is 'protected' by the First Amendment, can allow important politicians to openly call for the illegal murder of a publisher.  After all, regardless of what documents Wikileaks has published, they are simply publishing documents that they have been sent by others and even though these may contain information of a sensitive nature, according to both NATO and the Pentagon, to date no one has been hurt as a result of these publications.

As Assange himself said in the interview:

"If we are to have a civil society we cannot have senior people making calls on national tv to go around the judiciary and illegally murder people.  That is incitement to commit murder, that is an offence. We can not have senior people on national TV asking people to commit an offence.  That is not a country that obeys the rules of law.  Does the United States obey the rule of law? because Europeans are starting to wonder..." 

Im sure that the United States would have been quick to condemn any Russian politician who called for the illegal assassination of a member of the press.  Do you remember the controversy around the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB/FSB officer turned journalist who suddenly fell ill in November 2006, due to what was established as a case of radioactive poisoning?

The video below shows Bob Beckel and a Panel of Analysts discussing and calling for the assassination of Julian Assange:

The second point that I wish to briefly address is the treatment of Private Bradley Manning who is suspected to have been responsible for a major leak of classified documents to Wikileaks.  Manning has been kept in solitary confinement at a military prison since May 2010, under extremely pressing conditions yet has not been convicted.  The treatment of Manning has been referred to as 'cruel and inhumane' by many of the worlds top human rights analysts and personally I am a member of the same school of thought.  If Manning is guilty of leaking official documents, then he should face a fair trial and the justice system should agree the correct punishment.  He should not be held, under such conditions, based upon the fact that he may be guilty.  Whatever happened to the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'? 

Liar Liar!

Unfortunately, Captain Ska's Liar Liar didn't make it to Christmas No.1 this year.  It got stuck down at number 89. Regardless of this, I would like to see the popularity of this song continue to grow in the New Year.  I agree with Captain Ska!

Wikileaks - A Documentary.

I just thought that I would share this documentary with you all.  For now, I have decided to not comment about my own personal opinions on Wikileaks or Julian Assange.  There are many reasons for this decision, the main (in all honesty) being that I have as of yet still not formed any strong opinions or solid ideas/views.  I was linked this documentary late last night and found it extremely interesting and so thought that I would share it with you.  Please feel free to comment with your own ideas or views on Wikileaks here.  I am encouraging an open debate.  I hope the documentary is of interest to you.

Watch the Documentary Here..The Story of Wikileaks

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

Hello!

I just wanted to leave a short message wishing you all a very very merry christmas!! I hope that you all have truely fantastic day's!  Thank you for reading my blog! Ben x

Met. Police seek to take away democratic right to protest.

In yet another shocking development from the developing UK police state, Chief commissioner of the Met. Police Paul Stephenson (the sir has deliberately been left out here) has refused to rule out the possibility of banning further protests in London city.

"It is one of the tactics we will look at and something we will keep under review, and if we think it is the right thing to do then we will do it" he has said.

Whilst it is important to remember that demonstrations cannot be banned in the UK (yet) marches can be - meaning that we still retain the right to gather in any particular area to demonstrate but the police will have the right to control our movements and where we are allowed to congregate.  Under these plans we will no longer be able to march from location to location.  So, basically when turning up to a demonstration you will be turning up directly at the police 'kettle' and then they will be able to move us where ever they like, most likely out of sight from the public.

How can Britain, a nation that prides itself as being a pioneer of democracy, allow such plans to be openly discussed by our police?  Especially using as valid reasoning some small-scale violence witnessed at recent protests.  The UK is not the only country in Europe to face violent protests in these times of austerity.  Countries such as France, Greece and Italy have been rocked by rioting in recent months, yet none of these states have proposed such preposterous measures.

To quote the words of Aaron Porter, the president of the NUS (National Union of Students) "Peaceful protest is an integral part of our heritage and it is the responsibility of the police to help facilitate that."

I cant help but think that should such measures ever come into effect the resulting backlash would be an increase in violence and destruction at any future event fueled by anger and frustration aimed at the police.  This however may be just the reaction the met are looking for in order to use the stories published in the media as a tool to discredit those who attend protests.  There can be no denying how recent police tactics have been designed to enrage protesters who are falsely imprisoned for hours in the freezing cold with no access to food, water or toilet facilities.